Do You Believe We Came From Monkeys?

Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.

I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book. After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo. For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg. That's a fact. What parts do you think is myth?

I think the creation story and the flood are both mythical - folklore passed down verbally from generation to generation. As far as the chicken before the egg, I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Before we had birds, we had various kinds of reptiles, which were also egg layers, so I'd say the egg came before the chicken.

Here is a reference to one theory about the great flood

Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia

The Ryan/Pitman book is very good.

Edit:

Saying the flood story is a myth is incorrect. There very likely was a large scale event with many ancient peoples displaced by flooding. Tales of that flooding are parts of a number of cultures, and the tale has been included in the Bible.
And if you do not understand the chicken came first, then you do not understand longtime science mysteries. Too many people believed evolution which taught that the egg came first, but the secular (atheist) scientists were wrong. The egg can't fertilize itself. One needs a chicken and rooster. Also, the chicken produces the protein that coats the egg. We all know that one needs a cell to produce protein. It can't pop into existence at the molecular level.

I love how you 'secular scientists' are wrong- when you could have just been more succinct and said 'scientists'.

I am not surprised that you Creato-Christian cultists refuse the science of evolution- or that the egg came first.
Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken.

Want another example?

Which came first a baby Liger or an adult Liger?

Eyeroll. It's a FACT now that the chicken came first. You keep dodging the question, so I'm going to ignore yours. If the egg came first, then how did the protein which only the chicken can produce end up on the shell?

You know- the only fact is that you keep saying that the chicken came first.

Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken.

Want another example?

Which came first a baby Liger or an adult Liger?

Where did the Liger DNA come from?
 
Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.

I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book. After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo. For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg. That's a fact. What parts do you think is myth?

I think the creation story and the flood are both mythical - folklore passed down verbally from generation to generation. As far as the chicken before the egg, I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Before we had birds, we had various kinds of reptiles, which were also egg layers, so I'd say the egg came before the chicken.

Here is a reference to one theory about the great flood

Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia

The Ryan/Pitman book is very good.

Edit:

Saying the flood story is a myth is incorrect. There very likely was a large scale event with many ancient peoples displaced by flooding. Tales of that flooding are parts of a number of cultures, and the tale has been included in the Bible.


There's evidence of global flooding is that the earth is 3/4 covered with water and we see that mountains came up from beneath the seafloor. People think the water can't get as high as Mt. Everest, which I can understand, but it could if Everest was lower and then became higher f

Sorry- that is not evidence of 'global flooding' but of misguided Creato-Christian thinking.

Yes- the Earth is 3/4 covered with water- but there is absolutely no evidence- zilch- that it was ever covered 100% by water. Instead the evidence shows the reverse- that the earth was never 100% covered by water.

But I am amused that you think that Everest in the last 4,000 years has become dramatically higher.

LOL. We agree. The earth was not covered by water. It had water vapors and some water, but not 3/4 covered by water. It just goes to show you do not understand the Bible and the science behind it.
17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.e]">[e]f]">[f] 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.

I don't know off hand how big a cubit is- but if Everest was covered at all- then yes- the Bible said that the entire earth was covered- 100%
 
Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.

I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book. After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo. For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg. That's a fact. What parts do you think is myth?
Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken.

Syriusly you believe in myths.

There's also the problem of infinite regression. If there was a proto-chicken and proto-rooster, then where did they come from? The proto-proto-chicken? And where did the proto-proto-chicken come from? The proto-proto-proto-chicken? Ha ha.

Oh I am sure there is some myth I believe in that I am not even aware of.

There is no problem of 'infinite regression' - there is just evolution and that you find the concept of evolution to be in conflict with your narrow view of your holy book.

Do I have to just spit it out ha ha? The myth you believe in is evolution. .

A myth is a story unsupported by history, science or evidence.
Evolution is a scientific theory that is supported by the evidence we have of life on earth, past and present. I believe the evidence- not the fairy tales.
 
Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.

I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book. After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo. For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg. That's a fact. What parts do you think is myth?
Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken.

Syriusly you believe in myths.

There's also the problem of infinite regression. If there was a proto-chicken and proto-rooster, then where did they come from? The proto-proto-chicken? And where did the proto-proto-chicken come from? The proto-proto-proto-chicken? Ha ha.

Oh I am sure there is some myth I believe in that I am not even aware of.

There is no problem of 'infinite regression' - there is just evolution and that you find the concept of evolution to be in conflict with your narrow view of your holy book.

This is why creation teaching, as another theory, needs to be taught.

Tell us more about this 'creation teaching' that needs to be taught. In your opinion- what is the 'theory of creation' that is supported by science that kids need to learn?
 
The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.

Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.

I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book. After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo. For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg. That's a fact. What parts do you think is myth?

I think the creation story and the flood are both mythical - folklore passed down verbally from generation to generation. As far as the chicken before the egg, I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Before we had birds, we had various kinds of reptiles, which were also egg layers, so I'd say the egg came before the chicken.

Here is a reference to one theory about the great flood

Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia

The Ryan/Pitman book is very good.

Edit:

Saying the flood story is a myth is incorrect. There very likely was a large scale event with many ancient peoples displaced by flooding. Tales of that flooding are parts of a number of cultures, and the tale has been included in the Bible.

How can a non-fiction book be mythical? You can say it's historical.

The Bible is considered a religious book- and is classified with all of the other books of religions- including Koran, and books about Greek and Roman religions (Dewey Decimal 200-299)

It's non-fiction and historical.

I doubt you've read it because it's too difficult to understand. Else, why don't you start with Genesis and you'll realize maybe humans didn't come from monkeys.
 
I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book. After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo. For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg. That's a fact. What parts do you think is myth?
Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken.

Syriusly you believe in myths.

There's also the problem of infinite regression. If there was a proto-chicken and proto-rooster, then where did they come from? The proto-proto-chicken? And where did the proto-proto-chicken come from? The proto-proto-proto-chicken? Ha ha.

Oh I am sure there is some myth I believe in that I am not even aware of.

There is no problem of 'infinite regression' - there is just evolution and that you find the concept of evolution to be in conflict with your narrow view of your holy book.

This is why creation teaching, as another theory, needs to be taught.

Tell us more about this 'creation teaching' that needs to be taught. In your opinion- what is the 'theory of creation' that is supported by science that kids need to learn?

Genesis.
 
Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.

I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book. After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo. For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg. That's a fact. What parts do you think is myth?

I think the creation story and the flood are both mythical - folklore passed down verbally from generation to generation. As far as the chicken before the egg, I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Before we had birds, we had various kinds of reptiles, which were also egg layers, so I'd say the egg came before the chicken.

Here is a reference to one theory about the great flood

Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia

The Ryan/Pitman book is very good.

Edit:

Saying the flood story is a myth is incorrect. There very likely was a large scale event with many ancient peoples displaced by flooding. Tales of that flooding are parts of a number of cultures, and the tale has been included in the Bible.

How can a non-fiction book be mythical? You can say it's historical.

The Bible is considered a religious book- and is classified with all of the other books of religions- including Koran, and books about Greek and Roman religions (Dewey Decimal 200-299)

It's non-fiction and historical.

I doubt you've read it because it's too difficult to understand. Else, why don't you start with Genesis and you'll realize maybe humans didn't come from monkeys.

It is neither non-fiction or fiction- it is a mixture of fairy tales and legends about historical events.

I have read the Bible many times- more so the Old Testament than the New Testament because I enjoy the Old Testament more.

By the way- which creation story for humans in the Old Testament do you prefer?
Genesis 1?
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,a]">[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

Or Genesis 2?

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the eartha]">[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streamsb]">[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a manc]">[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
 
Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken.

Syriusly you believe in myths.

There's also the problem of infinite regression. If there was a proto-chicken and proto-rooster, then where did they come from? The proto-proto-chicken? And where did the proto-proto-chicken come from? The proto-proto-proto-chicken? Ha ha.

Oh I am sure there is some myth I believe in that I am not even aware of.

There is no problem of 'infinite regression' - there is just evolution and that you find the concept of evolution to be in conflict with your narrow view of your holy book.

This is why creation teaching, as another theory, needs to be taught.

Tell us more about this 'creation teaching' that needs to be taught. In your opinion- what is the 'theory of creation' that is supported by science that kids need to learn?

Genesis.
Oh so you want to force Hindu's and Buddhists and atheists to believe in the Christian tale of Creation.

That is not 'creation teaching' that is just wanting to teach the Bible in school.
 
The Earth is a little over 4.5 billion years old, its oldest materials being 4.3 billion-year-old zircon crystals. Its earliest times were geologically violent, and it suffered constant bombardment from meteorites. When this ended, the Earth cooled and its surface solidified to a crust - the first solid rocks. There were no continents as yet, just a global ocean peppered with small islands. Erosion, sedimentation and volcanic activity - possibly assisted by more meteor impacts - eventually created small proto-continents which grew until they reached roughly their current size 2.5 billion years ago. The continents have since repeatedly collided and been torn apart, so maps of Earth in the distant past are quite different to today's.


The history of life on Earth began about 3.8 billion years ago, initially with single-celled prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria. Multicellular life evolved over a billion years later and it's only in the last 570 million years that the kind of life forms we are familiar with began to evolve, starting with arthropods, followed by fish 530 million years ago (Ma), land plants 475Ma and forests 385Ma. Mammals didn't evolve until 200Ma and our own species, Homo sapiens, only 200,000 years ago. So humans have been around for a mere 0.004% of the Earth's history.


BBC Nature - History of life on Earth
 
The Earth is a little over 4.5 billion years old, its oldest materials being 4.3 billion-year-old zircon crystals. Its earliest times were geologically violent, and it suffered constant bombardment from meteorites. When this ended, the Earth cooled and its surface solidified to a crust - the first solid rocks. There were no continents as yet, just a global ocean peppered with small islands. Erosion, sedimentation and volcanic activity - possibly assisted by more meteor impacts - eventually created small proto-continents which grew until they reached roughly their current size 2.5 billion years ago. The continents have since repeatedly collided and been torn apart, so maps of Earth in the distant past are quite different to today's.


The history of life on Earth began about 3.8 billion years ago, initially with single-celled prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria. Multicellular life evolved over a billion years later and it's only in the last 570 million years that the kind of life forms we are familiar with began to evolve, starting with arthropods, followed by fish 530 million years ago (Ma), land plants 475Ma and forests 385Ma. Mammals didn't evolve until 200Ma and our own species, Homo sapiens, only 200,000 years ago. So humans have been around for a mere 0.004% of the Earth's history.


BBC Nature - History of life on Earth

Where is the evidence for as you state? What I have is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Do you even know who came up with the Earth being 4.5 billions years old? Evolution has been getting longer and longer and the Earth getting older and older as the years roll by. In Darwin's time, he estimated Earth was around 300 millions years old.

Next, single cells do not just form from primordial soup. We've had hypotheses of spotaneous generation, chemical evolution and abiogenesis and still not one singe cell. All of it is pseudoscience. You mention a single cell, but how does it evolve into a multicell and a cell that has reproduces via sexual union? All you did was added billions of years. Darwin didn't have that kind of luxury.
 
The Earth is a little over 4.5 billion years old, its oldest materials being 4.3 billion-year-old zircon crystals. Its earliest times were geologically violent, and it suffered constant bombardment from meteorites. When this ended, the Earth cooled and its surface solidified to a crust - the first solid rocks. There were no continents as yet, just a global ocean peppered with small islands. Erosion, sedimentation and volcanic activity - possibly assisted by more meteor impacts - eventually created small proto-continents which grew until they reached roughly their current size 2.5 billion years ago. The continents have since repeatedly collided and been torn apart, so maps of Earth in the distant past are quite different to today's.


The history of life on Earth began about 3.8 billion years ago, initially with single-celled prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria. Multicellular life evolved over a billion years later and it's only in the last 570 million years that the kind of life forms we are familiar with began to evolve, starting with arthropods, followed by fish 530 million years ago (Ma), land plants 475Ma and forests 385Ma. Mammals didn't evolve until 200Ma and our own species, Homo sapiens, only 200,000 years ago. So humans have been around for a mere 0.004% of the Earth's history.


BBC Nature - History of life on Earth

Where is the evidence for as you state? What I have is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Do you even know who came up with the Earth being 4.5 billions years old? Evolution has been getting longer and longer and the Earth getting older and older as the years roll by. In Darwin's time, he estimated Earth was around 300 millions years old.

Next, single cells do not just form from primordial soup. We've had hypotheses of spotaneous generation, chemical evolution and abiogenesis and still not one singe cell. All of it is pseudoscience. You mention a single cell, but how does it evolve into a multicell and a cell that has reproduces via sexual union? All you did was added billions of years. Darwin didn't have that kind of luxury.

The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.
 
The Earth is a little over 4.5 billion years old, its oldest materials being 4.3 billion-year-old zircon crystals. Its earliest times were geologically violent, and it suffered constant bombardment from meteorites. When this ended, the Earth cooled and its surface solidified to a crust - the first solid rocks. There were no continents as yet, just a global ocean peppered with small islands. Erosion, sedimentation and volcanic activity - possibly assisted by more meteor impacts - eventually created small proto-continents which grew until they reached roughly their current size 2.5 billion years ago. The continents have since repeatedly collided and been torn apart, so maps of Earth in the distant past are quite different to today's.


The history of life on Earth began about 3.8 billion years ago, initially with single-celled prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria. Multicellular life evolved over a billion years later and it's only in the last 570 million years that the kind of life forms we are familiar with began to evolve, starting with arthropods, followed by fish 530 million years ago (Ma), land plants 475Ma and forests 385Ma. Mammals didn't evolve until 200Ma and our own species, Homo sapiens, only 200,000 years ago. So humans have been around for a mere 0.004% of the Earth's history.


BBC Nature - History of life on Earth

Where is the evidence for as you state? What I have is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Do you even know who came up with the Earth being 4.5 billions years old? Evolution has been getting longer and longer and the Earth getting older and older as the years roll by. In Darwin's time, he estimated Earth was around 300 millions years old.

Next, single cells do not just form from primordial soup. We've had hypotheses of spotaneous generation, chemical evolution and abiogenesis and still not one singe cell. All of it is pseudoscience. You mention a single cell, but how does it evolve into a multicell and a cell that has reproduces via sexual union? All you did was added billions of years. Darwin didn't have that kind of luxury.

The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.

It's not the web, but the Bible that has the answers. I ended up with these same questions when I compared evolution to what the creation scientists were saying. However, I am smart enough to have an open mind and figure out who has the better theory and science. You were wrong about the evolution age of the Earth. You did not know that Clair Patterson came up with 4.5 B years old. This gave the atheist evo scientists enough time for their misguided theories..

How can one be a scientist if they throw out one of the answers right off the bat? That God created the earth and universe and everything living there. Instead, we have an universe created by invisible particles and meteors and star death forming planets. We have invisible dark energy that accelerates and expands our universe. How can meteors and dead stars align our planet just so that we do not go flying off into space or freeze to death or burn to a crisp? That kind of accuracy does not happen by chance even in 4.5 B years.

The Bible states that God stretches the heavens. How can a 4th century book predict that? It also predicted the universe would be flat and shaped like a scroll. The omega = 1, so it's flat. How much time will pass until the atheist scientists discover that the universe has borders and that its edges start to curve onto itself? That spacetime curves and we have the event horizon? Haven't they hypothesized some of this already? Furthermore, you could not answer how a single cell becomes a multicell and becomes capable of reproducing via sexual union. Chilarity prevents it, so it can't happen unless a creator makes it so.
 
Educate yourself, dingbat.
But that is not possible. When you are a freakish cult member, there are no such things as "facts". Any idea that supports his pre conceived, embarrassing magical bullshit is "true", and all else is "false".

Such a failed human can't truly learn anything. Reason and evidence are meaningless to him.
 
Sorry Shazoom, you're a little behind. We have settled that part, i think... But welcome to the conversation!

Are you Jewish? And if so, why?
Jewish is not only religion...
I born as Jewish..
"Jewish" is not a race, it's a religion. Your parents are Jewish and because of that, you are Jewish as well.

You never had a choice. You were born into your religion and brainwashed from birth. Same with Christian and Muslim religions.

They usually don't have a choice.

I had a choice. because I never got brainwashed. And I studied many religions and their history. And my findings were that the big three were all corrupt and wrong. There is no need to believe in a religion if you are a righteous person. Just be a righteous person, and don't follow corruption.

And then the world would be fine...sans religion....
I have to disagree. I know people who where raised in a "Christian" home and believed that being born into a faith was all there was. The Lord doesn't care who your parents are! He wants a one on one. And I came to know the Lord when I was 12. I know Jews who felt the same way, even to the point that it was better to be a Jew and atheistic then become "Messianic" and have faith in GOD... Religion is not what true "Christianity " is all about. It's a relationship. Relationships for the most part are free; however, they do involve interaction and that is where prayer and research/study come into play.
If you were born into a Muslim family, would you still be Jewish/Christian?
Wrong, if you were borne intoHin , let's say,
Is it the religion that is right? Or the birthright that is right?
It is the truth and fact that is right. And I know Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists and Jews who have awakened to the truth of Our LORD JESUS the Messiah and have become CHRISTIANS (followers of Christ). Only the TRUTH shall set you free!

Acts 8:26-40

26 But as for Philip, an angel of the Lord said to him, “Go over to the road that runs from Jerusalem through the Gaza Desert, arriving around noon.” 27 So he did, and who should be coming down the road but the Treasurer of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace the queen. He had gone to Jerusalem to worship 28 and was now returning in his chariot, reading aloud from the book of the prophet Isaiah.

29 The Holy Spirit said to Philip, “Go over and walk along beside the chariot.”

30 Philip ran over and heard what he was reading and asked, “Do you understand it?”

31 “Of course not!” the man replied. “How can I when there is no one to instruct me?” And he begged Philip to come up into the chariot and sit with him.

32 The passage of Scripture he had been reading from was this:

“He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb is silent before the shearers, so he opened not his mouth; 33 in his humiliation, justice was denied him; and who can express the wickedness of the people of his generation? For his life is taken from the earth.”

34 The eunuch asked Philip, “Was Isaiah talking about himself or someone else?”

35 So Philip began with this same Scripture and then used many others to tell him about Jesus.

36 As they rode along, they came to a small body of water, and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! Why can’t I be baptized?”

37 “You can,” Philip answered, “if you believe with all your heart.”

And the eunuch replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

38 He stopped the chariot, and they went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, and the eunuch never saw him again, but went on his way rejoicing. 40 Meanwhile, Philip found himself at Azotus! He preached the Good News there and in every city along the way, as he traveled to Caesarea.

If you were borne into a different religion, you would not be quoting those things. You would be quoting different things.

It's about brainwashing. And the best way to do it is at birth...
 
Yes, we're all related due to evolution!

Had God Created Spontaneous Creation, we would not share those similar genetic traits.

You and I are not related and we have 99% similar DNA and 1% difference. The 1% is enough to show no relationship.
Heck yes we are related. As much as we argue, you are me. And I am you. Had God created everything spontaneously, we would have much different variations in our DNA.

Makin me superior of course....
 
Here is something to ponder. Things are seldom what they seem.
What percentage of human DNA is shared with other things?

6 Answers

Xu Beixi
, loves Nature.
Answered Mar 24 2014 · Author has 4.7k answers and 31.1m answer views


It depends on what you mean by share.

What do you consider the premise of your study? It it genome size, number of genes, chromosome number, phylogeny, etc. etc.? What constitutes alike as to different?

Also, it doesn't help that we don't know what all our genes are for, how they're used, what proteins they make, and there are so many ways for post-transcriptional modification that we can't begin to figure all of them out.

Finally, to answer:

It is very difficult to find reliable data comparing the human genome to animal genome. The principal reason is that few animals have had their full genome sequenced. Even those that have cannot be easily compared in terms of percentages because the genomic length and chromosomal division can vary greatly from one species to another.

Scouring the Web, here is what I have found so far.

- Genome-wide variation from one human being to another can be up to 0.5% (99.5% similarity)

- Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated.

- Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice.

- Cows (Bos taurus) are 80% genetically similar to humans

- 75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans (source), 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans

- The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans.

- About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene.

Yes, we're all related due to evolution!

Had God Created Spontaneous Creation, we would not share those similar genetic traits.

Really? Why not? What rock-solid evidence, or any evidence, do you have that says that Creation would require everything to be 100% genetically different? We all have to exist on the same planet. Why wouldn't He use similar traits, in different combinations, to fit us to live in the same place?

A master artist's work, no matter what the subject matter, can be identified by the similarity of brush strokes, after all.
100% genetically different is impossible, unless it's a different origin. We are all related due to evolution and therefore share very many similar genes.

If all organisms were instantaneously "created" by a "God", all organisms wouldn't share such a similar gene pool.

The similarity of the gene pool, from bacteria to humans, shows that is was a gradual thing that took billions of years, of evolution....
 
Last edited:
Just one more thing to consider....

God may have created all organisms on Earth spontaneously about 6000 years ago.

The Devil changed our DNA sequences, and buried fake dino fossils, just to cause doubt and be a dick...

I can agree with that.
 
Yes, we're all related due to evolution!

Had God Created Spontaneous Creation, we would not share those similar genetic traits.

You and I are not related and we have 99% similar DNA and 1% difference. The 1% is enough to show no relationship.
Heck yes we are related. As much as we argue, you are me. And I am you. Had God created everything spontaneously, we would have much different variations in our DNA.

Makin me superior of course....

No, my point was to show that even though we have similar DNA, out immediate families aren't related. As for what you are referring to, God didn't create us all spontaneiously. We came from a common ancestor of humans, Adam and Eve. Who is the common ancestor in your explanation?
 

Forum List

Back
Top